I’ve haven’t seen it either.

I have looked at previous sets of statistics about how effective the allocation of funds are and the results looked pretty conclusive to me. That is most of the things that get hyped up are seriously inefficient in terms of cost versus benefit and items like eco-plantations for bio fuels caused a six-fold increase in carbon footprints.

The clearest, and most effective means of combating climate change is, quite ironically, what many people keep complaining politicians focus too much on ... that is GDP. As GDP rises so does healthcare, education and access to opportunity, whilst malnutrition, disease and child mortality fall.

And before anyone says it, increasing GDP does necessarily mean inequality will likely go up (almost certainly for the cream at the top). Poverty causes damage to the environment that wealth.

Also, many millionaires and billionaires are the ones able to plug the holes governments would be criticized for trying to fill. This is because the attitude of ‘Why help children in Africa when kids are dying here?’ Will necessarily persist to sone degree or another - after all people have every right to suggest their taxes go toward helping their country/people regardless of what anyone else’s opinion is (and thankfully people still actively argue about this).

I would say both should be considered. — Amity

Well, yeah! I was trying to emphasis the flaw in being overly concerned with the quality of the audience rather than the quality of the writing in this case - wasn’t crystal clear because I got a touch carried away with that post :)

I’m much ‘happier’ to focus on myself as being the ‘lazy,’ ‘mean,’ and ‘stupid’ writer because I can at least attempt to do something about that directly.

Every analogy/aphorism has its opposite.

‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’ doesn’t hold up against ‘Many hands make light work’. The ‘ulitmate’ truth is context dependent. As a rhetorical means to emphasis a point/position they serve some purpose.

@Baden@Hanover Over time I’ve become convinced you two are either married or a lifelong couple!

Such strong love and respect bubbling under the surface :D

This thread isn’t supposed to be about me or my book, but whatever, if that’s all anyone wants to talk about... — Pfhorrest

I’ve got that, but it’s attached to the subject obviously - but certainly not greatly important to aspects of writing.

I terms of ‘style’ there are, as Frank pointed out, no hard rules (and as Orwell states in his last point - ‘break any or all these rules rather than write something barbarous’). Something I proposed once on another forum was writing the same section in several different styles alongside each other. The initial idea was more of an exercise in writing, but then I started to consider that it may actually serve as use to reader in that it would allow them to compare and contrast how the same thing can be said in many different ways and assess, in their own mind, what combinations work for them and could work for others - in a sense it wasn’t about ‘expressing’ my ideas, but more about the reader having an active interest in seeing how an idea can be expressed in different ways.

In terms of the OP if you have someone who is either very knowledgeable about the subject matter (anti-stupid), extremely studious and persistent (anti-lazy), or extremely charitable and open to interpret your words in various ways (anti-mean). None of these things matter a great deal if there is no interest - the exception being with ‘anti-stupid’ because greater knowledge of a subject would require a degree of active interest.

I would never suggest that there are certain set rules, but there are certainly things to be avoided. I believe the biggest hurdle for any writer is getting past the idea that they are trying to be understood by the reader (I would even say this is the case in philosophical writing too, although for obvious reasons a more subtle problem). I imagine we can all agree that any philosophical work that we’ve read has never been met with our full agreement - this is the KEY point in regards to ‘being understood’. As long as we find use/value in part of what is being expressed THROUGH the authors words that is all that matters to us (of course this isn’t to say we ignore the intent of the author because our interest in what is written is partially driven by the authors declarations of intent - and they have to fulfill them enough to satisfy the readers interpretation of said ‘intent’).

An example of ‘quality’ (in terms of Grice) I like to refer to Kant’s words from The Critique of Pure Reason. Other than his text being a kind of go-to read for people interested in philosophy, there is something brutally honest (‘quality’) he states early on. First the subject matter is clear - he posed a question to the reader (not literally a ‘?’ though).

In the preface to the first edition:

... Abbe Terrasson writes indeed that if we measured the size of a book, not by the number of its pages, but by the time we require for mastering it, then it could be said of many a book that it would be much shorter if it were not so short. On the other hand, if we ask how a wide-ranging whole of speculative knowledge that yet coheres in one principle can best be rendered intelligible, we might be equally justified in saying that many a book would have been clearer if it had not tried to be so very clear. For though the aids to clarity be missed with regard to details, they often distract with regard to the whole. The reader does not arrive quickly enough at an overview of the whole, and bright colours of illustrations hide and distort the articulation and organization of teh system, which, after all, matter most if we want to judge of its unity and solidity.

The main point here I personally have to drill into my head, over and over, is “... many a book would have been clearer if it had not tried to be so very clear.” I’m a whore for tangental thought and often go off-road without realising it (I have a feeling I could be doing it in this very post? Haha!)

My emphasis in a final draft would always be focused on what is compelling to the reader, what is of interest for the reader, and whether or not I’ve managed to express this without stating it explicitly - no one likes to be told what to think and how to think it. People come armed to the project with their own ideas and speculative thoughts ready and willing to bounce them off what they find.

The adeptness of the reader shouldn’t be a concern for the author. The adeptness of the author should be the concern of the author. The hardest thing is understanding who would find use/value in what you’ve written and whether or not you reach them quickly enough before they lose interest (the later is a great problem when the subject of concern is highly technical and requires copious background knowledge beforehand). So-called ‘philosophical works’ that I’ve found easier to digest are usually quite dated (Rousseau and such) and usually they’re focused more on what would now be categorised as ‘Social Sciences’ and/or ‘Psychology’, but there are more modern works that do a very tasty job of creating a fuller, yet less detailed, picture (Russell’s ‘A History of Western Philosophy,’ and more recently something I read the other year that makes use of combining History with Philosophy, Herman’s ‘The Cave and The Light’ which has a stronger narrative form than Russell’s work).

I wouldn’t say people read philosophy for ‘fun,’ but it is an act of self-cultivation that can certainly be uplifting. Because philosophy doesn’t have an ‘end goal,’ per se, it is a difficult subject to frame for the layman so buttressing it up against something else (be this history, motorbikes or keep fit) helps to spread the net wider. The whole scope of philosophy is, in my mind, completely at odds with day-to-day living, but certain magnification of ‘parts’ of philosophy do readily slot into day-to-day living. A project hoping to reach the general public the is infused with a complete overview of the philosophical endeavor is likely doomed to failure unless it can wrap itself around more obvious aspects of human life that connect with human activity in a visceral manner.

Anyway, sorry if I’m being a tangent monster - it’s not my intention! I guess what I believe is that what my ideas are and what I want to say are not necessarily of any particular interest to the reader. My focus, once I have my ideas and what I want to say lain out, then my focus should shift to the reader’s perspective - what they may or may not find fruitful and how turning up or down the contrast here or there would balance the work enough to be an engaging read that the reader can work with rather than the reader being a passive receptacle for what I believe is important and interesting.

I like writing :)

No argument there.

No matter what if you start out with a title like “How to Play the Piano” and the introduction talks exclusively about the the average size of a coconut in Jamaica, which then leads into the first chapter that jumps from the history of piano construction to what is, in the author’s opinion, the perfect size for a piece of paper ... well, I’d probably read on tbh! Haha! That’s though :)

Grice’s maxims of Quality and Relation. Be honest with the reader about what they’re going to read and stay on topic. If the reader is set up for x and reads on looking for it but never finding it then they’ll give s poor review, whilst if they read the first few paragraphs and decide ‘this isn’t for me’ they may still recommend to someone whose interests it may suit.

Basically don’t waste the reader’s time or it could effectively stop what you’ve done reaching an audience that would value it.

I was just fishing for an invitation :(

To get through to an audience, they must be at least one of those three things:
- Smart enough to understand precise technical language
- Patient enough to read through a fortress of clarifications, or
- Charitable enough to look your intended meaning.

Any audience that is none of those things will be unreachable no matter how much you try, and the more effort you put into fortifying against one kind of vice, the more you sacrifice toward your defense against at least one of the other two. — Pfhorrest

I generally disagree with this. The audience is not an audience. A person reads for themselves so the primary things to consider when writing is who will read it and of what use is it to them (if we’re talking about a technically minded reader). This means no flip-flopping (ie. ‘Maybe x or maybe why.?Let’s see.’). The reader wants to know the point from the get go, not to be corralled into a corner for the big reveal.

If the point is established then the reader knows why they should care. They want to know what is of value for them NOT what your ideas and thoughts are (that’s tangental).

Maybe it’s better to think as the reader as ‘selfish’. If there is nothing of apparent interest, nothing they care for, nor any visible value within the first few paragraphs, then they’ll move on - unless they’re paid to read (editors, researchers, scholars, teachers and professors).

In fact, you can profitably take this one step further and pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean. He's lazy in that he doesn't want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn't want to figure out what your argument is, if it's not already obvious. He's stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he's mean, so he's not going to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he's going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.) If you understand the material you're writing about, and if you aim your paper at such a reader, you'll probably get an A.

It certainly makes more sense in terms of the above. What I think many here, including myself, took it to mean was something quite different as to how it’s set out here.

When writing any technical paper the writer assumes that the reader understands the subject matter well enough so as not to have to literally teach them something like basic arithmetic. The ‘stupid’ as concise writing, the ‘lazy’ as impatient (get to the point) and the ‘mean’ as actively looking for flaws in your position (people read for their own benefit not the writers benefit).

Two of my go to ‘guides’ for all general writing are these:

http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/72/30.pdf

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html

Grice’s Maxims were made for ‘speech,’ but I’ve found them a sturdy enough guide - especially for evidence based writing. Orwell is simply a master.

Essays and thesis aimed at teachers are quite different beasts - they are being PAID to read your work.

Well, when it comes to the social sciences they don’t conduct anything like the same kind of rigor that physics, chemistry or biology does simply because we’re not allowed to experiment on humans en masse - that’s for the politicians! Haha! ;)

I remember such ideas being parroted in physics classes when writing up experiments - works for that because every, ‘seemingly pointless,’ detail matters if experiments are to be repeated.

It that sense, for scientific writing up scientific experiments, it’s a pretty solid base to start from.

It is the thing we do most besides feeding, sleeping and surviving. — ttjordy

Not for me! That would be a shitty life :)

This is more focused on ‘religion and science,’ but I think there is something like a similar disjoint between ‘philosophy and mysticism’

Brain Greene on Joe Rogan (20 mins): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpStPNAB7Cw

You have every right to critique the products of my efforts (and I have every right to disregard them if I think they're without value, which I now intend to do with you), but you have no right to tell me I'm not putting enough effort in. — Pfhorrest

Okay, first two points. Of course. Last point is untrue and I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a reasonable number of people who’d find this ‘really offensive’:

I was hoping to find something like a “philosophy fandom”, that might have that same kind of collaborative creative enthusiasm for “fan philosophical” works. But from what I gather even in contemporary video game fandoms that kind of spirit is hard to find these days, so maybe that kind of hope was always in vain.

(...but I’m trying anyway).
— Pfhorrest

Not trying hard enough. Maybe you’re just not ready yet and find it easier to swallow if it’s ‘the world’ that’s against you instead of yourself.

We’re all human though. I do the same often enough and still hoodwink myself for days/weeks/months at a time. Slowly less and less, it is what it is, we are what we are, but we can instill ourselves a break our own destructive patterns if we manage to stop being consumed by hidden fears for a few brief instances (and they’re always brief or insanity ensues).

GL and keep trying to try, to try trying, to try :D

I have every right to point out that me, you and everyone else make excuses and blame the world often enough rather than look to our own faults.

Like I said before, you're not my boss, hovering over my shoulder to make sure I'm not slacking off. You don't have any grounds to tell me I'm not working hard enough. You can be dissatisfied with the result of my work, but it's my work on my own initiative; I am my boss in this matter. You don't know what else is on my plate, and you don't get to judge whether I'm putting in enough effort. — Pfhorrest

But I do, as does everyone else here, when you come online expressing views of internet forums and how you’re not getting what you’re looking for.

This is also a particularly hot-button issue for me because my father was emotionally abusive in exactly this way when I was younger, turning every dissatisfaction with some outcome of my actions into an attack on my character. (Unexpected problem occurred that I didn't think would happen? "That's right you didn't think!"Any other explanation of how something turned out worse than I meant it to? "No excuses!" It's because of that that I now feel guilty whenever anything bad happens, no matter how out of my control reasonable people would say it was, because I've internalized that I should have been smart enough to foresee every possible problem and proactive enough to preemptively prevent it.) — Pfhorrest

I don’t really come here to be empathetic about peoples hopes, dreams, worries and personal baggage. Professionals can do that to some degree on a personal one-to-one basis. I can only offer a broad point from personal experience (which I wouldn’t normally express here or anywhere else online).

I can relate. In my family my brothers and sister have a very hard time dealing with our parents. I don’t though. For some reason they don’t see them as humans who make the same stupid mistakes in life they make. I used to be angry at my parents for a while and shifted blame onto them. At the end of the day life is tough for everyone sometime more so for others than yourself.

Both my parents repeatedly said exactly the same things as what you’ve shown above and a hell of a lot worse. It might, just might, be your problem not theirs - and that isn’t a bad or derogatory thought to address, just an extremely useful way to deal with who and what you are as an individual. We’re all effectively fucked up in one way or another and often better off for it sometimes :)

That you said I wasn't trying hard enough, and directly in response to me referencing my maxim, admitting that maybe I shouldn't reasonably have had any hopes for something, but that I was at least trying for it. — Pfhorrest

I agree with your maxim. What we do is never enough, we never try hard enough and yet we should really keep at it. That is essentially what I said, but with emphasis on pushing ourselves on regardless.

If you were offended by what I said you should be equally offended by your own words. They are, at their heart, the same. The difference was only in the delivery.

Yeah, exercise. Eat fat and workout.

Try this ...

Piggyback off your emotions to make yourself workout and stop posting for a few weeks. Focus on your body and mind will follow.

Especially to Sushi for taking it so well and speaking in my favor even though he was the target. (I still find that “not trying” remark really offensive and don’t want to engage with you anymore, but it didn’t warrant that kind of flaming). — Pfhorrest

I will engaging with you though. If you still think what I said was ‘really offensive’ you have a problem. I’ve looked back through what I said and the only thing that was off-colour was the ‘high-school’ comment because I neglected to explain what I meant by it - which I did explain as soon as I realised.

What did you find so offensive? You’re maxim says practically the same thing.

The emotional attachment you have to your project is the only logical explanation I have (that happens to everyone to some degree - it’s helpful to realise this though in order to make possible improvements by receiving critique).

Nicaragua and death children. Research that. There are instances that show how a new language can develop.

Something that is interesting is how ‘tense’ is used. There is very little evidence to work with though.

Anyone bothered?

Ganz Andere.

Other people may or may not be implying some ‘supernatural’ stuff (which frankly, is a contrary term in my mind so I just default to ‘ganz andere,’ WHOLLY other not HOLY other.

Mysticism doesn’t have to involve woo woo. I understand that many people view Plato as woo woo, but it’s hard to deny there is actual tangible content to mull over - maybe it’s a matter of cultural heritage? The New Age caused a bizarre fetishism in the west for all things ‘eastern’.

Correct me if I’m getting this right. You’re saying feel good feels good and feeling bad feels bad ... my question is whether or not you’re actually trying to say anything else?

I’m assuming I’ve missed something as you’ve had several replies to something that, from my perspective, says literally nothing other than the glaringly obvious. What did I miss?

I don’t know what that means.

I was just trying to point out that words are more pliable when the subject matter has little substance. So suggesting ‘understanding’ is only possible if it can be articulated is a hard sell (for me at least).

The problem is that MadFool was talking about mysticism, not his opinion of it. Maybe people are confusing the two, or are they the same thing - is mysticism a kind of opinion - if so, then an opinion about what? If mysticism is ineffable regardless of one's opinion, then what is the purpose of even talking about your opinion of it? If mysticism isn't necessarily ineffable, but can be also be expressible, then we are talking past each other, and not sharing opinions about the same thing. — Harry Hindu

It’s like love. When people have a strong experience if it it’s incredibly hard to appreciate that others have experienced anything similar and not ended up screaming, jumping and shouting about it.

It’s also prone to induce certain paradigm shifts that leave people floating in a void (aka some form of insanity).

We can sing and dance, spout poetry and chant. Mysticism is something like that imo but, well ... this is the problem. What I’m talking about isn’t likely to be close to what many people mean.

In tangible terms what I was hoping to talk about here was the artifacts of mysticism - ie. texts revered by all manner of people (the Tao Te Ching is certainly something that can act as a common point of focus, as can other revered works - and make no mistake, many of these texts are regarded as important reflections of the common human experience).

Ridicule is often the default mode when people mention ‘mysticism’. Choosing to show interest in such a human experiences/ideas can be useful. That is not to say there are many, many pitfalls. I’ve seen people post some crazy shit and I have a pretty good idea what got then there, but also realise - in many instances - there is little I can do to reach them.

From a scientific perspective there are some threads of research that explore these things tangentially. At the moment there is too much that is pure speculation, but not a very long time ago if you were interested in studying ‘consciousness’ in the neurosciences it was almost like ending your career as it was regarded as taboo.

Most of the time when the mystery of something is lifted people prefer the fantasy that came before. The so-called ‘mundane’ day-to-day living is the most extraordinary thing. If that was attended to more often things might go more smoothly.

What is unbelievable is just that. The best text I’ve read expressing this is the Tao Te Ching - that said aphorisms can be vicious things that can be put to horrible use. Rhetoric certainly plays it’s part in befuddling the most honest attempts to ‘discuss’ what can’t be ‘discussed’ and many a crackpot will unwittingly spoil the broth.

I could literally go on writing for days without stopping and give, at best, a possible glimpse of a gist of what slumbers within. It’s the human condition. It’s practically the same for everyone.

Meanwhile, the people who have successfully suppressed the mystical from their lives will see those discussing the mystical as speaking nonsense, insisting that they're talking about something which cannot be talked about. It's a sort of taboo. It's not that we cannot talk about it, it's that they have been trained not to talk about it and therefore have not developed the means for talking about it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep

What? Objections? I don’t understand.

Stab a baby in the leg with a knife and see if it ‘understands’ pain. According to what you said I guess not because it can’t articulate it with words.

Your philosophy looks very much like a form of primitive hedonism.

As for good and bad being nothing more than ‘emotions’ - I think investigating how you delineate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ may be fruitful for you (as in, are some ‘emotions’ so nuanced that it’s hard to distinguish them as being either ‘good’ or ‘bad’).

I’m interested to hear what you make of it. Not interested in reading it though.

I have a copy of The Tibetan Book of the Dead. It mostly focusing on how the living deal with death - as in, if someone dies how this is managed.

I suspect the book you mention may play of that position?

I’m absolutely certain I’m not your target audience so it’s VERY difficult to offer decent constructive criticism.

What immediately sticks out is your personality. If that is what you want, great. If you wanted your work to sound more distanced then you have some heavy editing to do.

Again, I’ve said this previously to someone else - very recently. Generally speaking people read not to get to know who you are, and what you know/think. They read for their own purposes - be this entertainment, to explore and attach their views to what is written, or to merely absorb information (the later is where personally distanced scholarly work comes to the fore).

It appears, correct me if I’m wrong, that you’re aiming this work at Christians and/or people with a specific scholarly interest in the gospels. That isn’t me sadly, so my comments are flavoured by that fact.

Often enough it is better to get your general ideas down on paper before you then decide on who you are speaking to and what you would like them to get from your words - probably one of the most difficult and confusing things to sort out imo!

GL

I’m not really that interested in your ‘thesis’. I was just pointing out that it looked very much like you equated whatever your or someone else’s idea of ‘information’ was to what Shannon was doing. In the text you posted there was no well-defined line between Shannon’s ‘information’ and yours.

That was all.

I’m don’t draw a specific boundary between what is and isn’t classed as ‘anarchy’ any more than I do between what is and isn’t a democracy.

‘Rights’ and ‘laws’ are also something I’d avoid lumping together. In terms of general social groups there are undoubtedly behaviors that are more or less accepted (that’s going more into the idea of a ‘social contract’). Absence of positive laws? I wouldn’t say that, but clearly without firmly established positive laws we’re talking more about ‘anarchy’ than not.

Opposition to an authority and a hierarchy (mostly, if not exclusively, a specific to ‘governmental hierarchy/authority’) certainly central to what constitutes ‘anarchy’.

The use of my words was cast in a broad ethnological sense, which is admittedly misleading as this half-baked thread was aimed more at ‘hyperbolic’ (or more charitably put, ‘hypothetical’) representations of governmental structure.

Maybe I should have said have clarified more by saying ‘initial state’ as well.

That’s not the same thing at all. Before there was a governmental body there wasn’t a governmental body - hierarchy doesn’t necessarily mean ‘governmental hierarchy’ and I’m argue that small tribal groups don’t constitute a ‘government’.

Nor am I saying it is in anyway ‘ideal’ just a matter of fact about where we’ve come from. Children left unattended are quite anarchical, but eventually they will ‘organise’ themselves to some degree (not denying that for a second).

I was just saying that your inquiry seemed barely connected to the OP, or any other posts made, and pointing you to a thread where you may find more traction.

People say all sorts of things. In the colloquial sense saying ‘the law’ or ‘scientists’ can be dogmatic holds some weight.

Science and law both lay no claim to absolute truth, and both change and develop over time. Just because they stagnate doesn’t mean they are based on dogmatic principles. For example, the way ‘justice’ was dished out centuries ago is nothing like it is today, and science today is utterly different to what to was centuries ago too.

Religion is based on doctrines, from scriptures most of the time. The ‘truth’ of the scriptures is never held to be questionable yet the interpretation, due to the nature of language, is varied. This is mostly, as far as I can see, due to the institutions of religion rather than a true reflection of ‘being religious’. A religious person needn’t be dogmatic, but at the root the institutionalized doctrine of a religious organisation is heavy embedded in dogma - the writ, unquestionable truth.

Of course, this is just a brief overview. I don’t parcel off my views as being black and white. I think some views, be they religious, scientific or legal, are prone to stagnation and that cultural trends push and pull different views and categories of thought in different directions.

If this is too much material for you to read, then just read what you're willing to. When reading and responding to this, do so from the very beginning. I explain why I think good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc. can only be emotions (feelings/perceptions/value judgments). — TranscendedRealms

My initial thought was, ‘What else could they be?’

Look forward to reading this tomorrow. Sounds intirguing.

This entire nexus of perception, conception, language, theory, self and logic is kind of mysterious to me. — Enrique

Yeah! We are certainly intrigued by similar things. Noticed that a while ago.

Remove his name then because his paper has nothing to do with some ‘knowledge’ and ‘ignorance’ - just makes it look like pseudoscience. The way you’ve displayed it could easily be construed that you’re using ‘information’ in the manner Shannon was - which you’re clearly not (maybe use the name/s of the guys from Buenos Aires instead?)

It is what it is. Why it is what it is is another matter entirely. Circadian rhythm seems the most likely cause, and I expect it has something to do with UV receptors that control out circadian rhythms - cannot remember what they’re called ... google? ... ha! No wonder:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_retinal_ganglion_cells

Bloody mouthful! :D

Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world. — Gnomon

I would say that isn’t even close to what Shannon’s work was about. Looks like you’ve had an idea and attached a famous name to it for inexplicable reasons.

If you can show otherwise then the egg is on my face - I’m fine with that.

Just looks like a very vague connection to say the least.